I believe that a team's design, and not the map on which it does battle, should determine the outcome of a match. One of the largest conflicting factors to this criterion is a map's size. Some designs naturally synchronise with large maps, others small. In attempt to excuse this factor, we change the map's size between rounds. Other conflicting factors, such as bottlenecks, poor placement, and so on, are less excusable. As the majority of FFT's maps contain at least one of these other factors, the majority are ill-suited for an assessment of sound team design. While I am comfortable with throwing out all of these maps, I would suspect the resultant lack of map variety will not sit well with most others. So, it is our task to separate the bad from the irredeemable.

I'll kick things off with my own arrangement. I've sorted them in terms of size. Here are my size qualifiers.

Small

Teams placed closely enough to make contact within the first turn

The majority of the opposing team's units are within striking distance at all times during battle

Large

Teams cannot make contact within their first turn

The map is large enough for units to attempt to stay outside of striking distance

Teams are subjected to the risk of spreading out and fighting on several fronts

Naturally, most maps will not fit all of a size's qualifiers in practise. For example, Colliery Underground First Floor (028) is large enough to be labeled large, but fighting tends to be clustered on its high ground, so teams stick together. This is where medium maps - which meet the small and large qualifiers halfway - come in.

I deem maps guilty of

bottlenecks (ex. Gates of Limberry Castle)

wide unit placement (ex. Inside of Riovanes Castle)

Unfair unit placement (ex. Weapon Storage of Yardow - team 1 is split across different heights, while team 2 is not)

to be the irredeemable kind. Of course, classification of such maps is subjective.

Anyway, here is my arrangement. I regard maps in bold to be of high quality. Maps I regard to be nearly irredeemable but are present for the sake of variety are italicised. If I believe that a map has undesirable features, I will indicate so in parentheses.

Here are the maps that didn't make the cut with my reasons for cutting them.

007 - Inside of Riovanes Castle (unit placement is too spread out)009 - Citadel of Igros Castle (bottlenecks)015 - At the Gate of Limberry Castle (1) (bottleneck)023 - Beoulve Residence (placement clustered around the building; units with fly/teleport can escape to the roof)026 - Weapon Storage of Yardow (team 1's unit placement is split across different heights)033 - Hospital in Slums (horrible camera)036 - Church Outside of Town (bottleneck for team 1)038 - Goug Machine City (bottlenecks)039 - Underground Passage in Goland (team 1's side of the map lacks stairs near the middle area)042 - Warjilis Trade City (bottleneck for team 2)047 - Zarghidas Trade City (fighting is split between either the rooftops or the ground; could be relabeled as large)050 - St. Murond Temple (bottleneck)052 - Chapel of St. Murond Temple (units are placed in pairs; unfavourable to support strategies)057 - Underground Book Storage First Floor (bottlenecks)059 - Underground Book Storage Third Floor (movement severely restricted for 3 jump units)062 - Chapel of Orbonne Monastery (units with fly/teleport can escape to the lower region)064 - In Front of Bethla Garrison's Sluice (bottleneck)066 - South Wall of Bethla Garrison (unit placement is too spread out)067 - North Wall of Bethla Garrison (team 1's unit placement is spread across different heights)070 - Nelveska Temple (team 2 is pinned within the temple)077 - Zigolis Swamp (AI is not mindful of the poisonous water)081 - Grog Hill (horrible layout)082 - Bed Desert (bottleneck for team 2)083 - Zirekile Falls (bottleneck)093 - Broke Down Shed-Wooden Building (ridiculously small)097 - Inside Castle Gate in Lesalia (ugly; fighting breaks into two sets of 2v2 at the start)104 - Beoulve Residence (ridiculously small)107 - NOGIAS (split placement)111 - MLAPAN (water inhibits movement)114 - END (horrible layout)115 - Banished Fort (bottlenecks; units with >3 jump on team 1 easily separate themselves from their team)117 - Checkerboard Land 1 (same map as 118, but with worse placement)119 - Checkerboard Land 3 (same map as 118, but with worse placement)

And finally, here are maps whose fate is undecided

041 - Besrodio's House (small if that golden contraption is removed, else cut)095 - Church (medium if teams 1 and 2 are grouped together on opposing corners of the map, else cut. Didn't Wiz fix this?)116 - Arena (medium if teams 1 and 2 are grouped together on opposing corners of the map, else cut)

Is the team split on maps like 95 and 26 a problem in your opinion because the team that's split might need say 2 casts of Haste 2 to get the whole party hasted vs 1 for the team that isn't split up?I ask because I think those two maps are fine - when the fighting actually starts, there isn't this huge separation of units like with 4+ jump units on Banished Fort (115).

Speaking of Banished Fort, I think that map, and some others in your 'Cut' category, can be salvaged if we change the starting locations a bit. Some possible changes, if people are willing to make them:

Banished Fort (115): have the teams start in the two other corners. Granted, there may still be some splitting up, but it won't be the huge extreme that possibly leads to quick 4v3/4v2s that we have now.Bed Desert (82): Have team 2 start towards the middle, i.e. around where Ramza and co. would start against Balk.Inside Castle Gate in Lesalia (97): both teams starting placement should be closer together. Current placement leads to 2 2v2s.Underground Book Storage First Floor (57): Have all units start on the bigger half of the map? This map plays out ok for the most part I think.Zarghidas Trade City (47): Have both teams start in the middle of the row instead of in the corner. (Keep current distance, just place units in the middle, so the fighting is more likely to happen on the ground) (I hope the wording is clear >_>)

Of course, if we make changes to the starting placement, it might lead to unforeseen problems, which would be bad. And it'd take time, and I think most people want a tournament to go underway as soon as possible. So maybe these will be things to consider for the future.

That being said, I think the following maps are all worthy of inclusion:At the Gate of Limberry Castle (2) (19): This map is fine. It's not super tight, and you'll get the classic melee guys fighting in front, mages casting from far back image.Besrodio's House (41): I agree with you, if the golden contraption is gone, it's a playable map.Chapel of Orbonne Monastery (62): I think it's ok, if flying/teleporting units are the only concern. Those units will likely fly/port back up at some point. The (slightly) bigger concern is if a unit without fly/teleport gets knocked off the main stage. But even with that possibility I think it's fine.Outside Castle Gate in Lesalia (98): This map is fine, aside from the map being incomplete and targeting issues. Very playable though.

And a map I disagree with:UBS3 (59): Absolutely needs to go. I'm surprised you've even considered it - bottlenecks and the limited movement for 3 jump units, as you've mentioned, make this map pretty lame. Especially the bottlenecks! That's like the whole map. XD

Is the team split on maps like 95 and 26 a problem in your opinion because the team that's split might need say 2 casts of Haste 2 to get the whole party hasted vs 1 for the team that isn't split up?

Yes. The team on the altar on map 95 begins at a slight disadvantage. Putting both teams in opposing corners would fix that, but maybe we can use it anyway, as apart from placement it is a good map.

Quote

Banished Fort (115): have the teams start in the two other corners. Granted, there may still be some splitting up, but it won't be the huge extreme that possibly leads to quick 4v3/4v2s that we have now.Bed Desert (82): Have team 2 start towards the middle, i.e. around where Ramza and co. would start against Balk.Inside Castle Gate in Lesalia (97): both teams starting placement should be closer together. Current placement leads to 2 2v2s.Underground Book Storage First Floor (57): Have all units start on the bigger half of the map? This map plays out ok for the most part I think.Zarghidas Trade City (47): Have both teams start in the middle of the row instead of in the corner. (Keep current distance, just place units in the middle, so the fighting is more likely to happen on the ground) (I hope the wording is clear >_>)

Good suggestions. I haven't modified positions before, though. Does anyone who has know if it is straightforward? As for Banished Fort, I would like to keep it cut anyway, as units will inevitably follow the bottleneck around the fort no matter the placement.

Quote

...I think the following maps are all worthy of inclusion:At the Gate of Limberry Castle (2) (19): This map is fine. It's not super tight, and you'll get the classic melee guys fighting in front, mages casting from far back image.

I just checked it. For some reason, I thought teams started on the walls. It looks like it could pass as a medium map with the current placement.

Quote

Chapel of Orbonne Monastery (62): I think it's ok, if flying/teleporting units are the only concern. Those units will likely fly/port back up at some point. The (slightly) bigger concern is if a unit without fly/teleport gets knocked off the main stage. But even with that possibility I think it's fine.

The fact that there is a safe haven on a small map at all sticks with me. I believe it is unfair to melee-based teams. Getting knocked off, like you said, only detracts further from it, even though the possibility is remote.

[/quote]

Quote

Outside Castle Gate in Lesalia (98): This map is fine, aside from the map being incomplete and targeting issues. Very playable though.

I'm in agreement. Let's include it for now, then.

Quote

And a map I disagree with:UBS3 (59): Absolutely needs to go. I'm surprised you've even considered it - bottlenecks and the limited movement for 3 jump units, as you've mentioned, make this map pretty lame. Especially the bottlenecks! That's like the whole map. XD

I'm glad you think so, too. I'll put it on the list of cut maps for now.

Quote

Also, what about Arena (116)? =P

Whoops. It should be on the list of undecided maps. It currently breaks into two sets of 2v2. If teams are moved to opposing corners, I will label it a medium map.

I have it on the list for its unique features, if anything. It is the only map that lets Geomancers utilise their "Move on Lava" ability, and one of the few maps on which they can use Lava Ball.

One negative point about Gates of Limberry Castle 2 (19) that I caught recently is that the camera is terrible. The walls constantly obstruct the action, which makes it difficult to both watch and commentate. Given that the medium maps currently outnumber both the large and small, I'm willing to strike it from the list, if only for aesthetic reasons. Medium maps will be assigned to the third round besides, so we won't be seeing as many rounds played on them, anyway.

On a different note, how does reserving a small selection of maps for the grand finals sound? The maps would be as balanced as possible so no single team can win via shenanigans (eg. Geomancers running amok on Bervenia Volcano, for instance). I'm thinking of setting aside Arena (provided its placement is fixed) as one of these maps. Also, let me echo past requests that the grand finals be a best of five. The map arrangement in terms size could be